Appeal 2006-2504
Application 09/422,998
Claims 13, 16, and 21
We consider next the Examiner’s rejection of claims 13, 16, and 21 as
being unpatentable over the teachings of Wookey. Since Appellants’
arguments with respect to this rejection have treated these claims as a single
group which stand or fall together, we will select independent claim 13 as
the representative claim for this rejection. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).
With respect to this group, Appellants essentially restate the same
arguments previously presented for claim 1 (Br. 13-15). Because we have
found supra that Wookey teaches receiving a request from a client, and
querying the system as specified by the request, we will sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 13 as being unpatentable over
Wookey for the same reasons discussed supra with respect to claim 1.
Appellants have not presented any substantive arguments directed
separately to the patentability of dependent claims 16 and 21. In the
absence of a separate argument with respect to the dependent claims, those
claims stand or fall with the representative independent claim. See In re
Young, 927 F.2d at 590, 18 USPQ2d at 1091. See also 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004). Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of these claims as being unpatentable over Wookey for the same
reasons discussed supra with respect to representative claim 13.
Claims 18, 20, and 22
We consider next the Examiner’s rejection of claims 18, 20, and 22 as
being unpatentable over the teachings of Wookey. Since Appellants’
arguments with respect to this rejection have treated these claims as a single
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013